Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation that I first authored in the 109th Congress to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I am again joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague from Kentucky, Ed Whitfield.

In both 2005 and 2006 the House adopted amendments I offered to the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. While we were successful in the House, neither amendment made it into law. In any event, these amendments would have only been a temporary one-year fix. What is needed is a permanent solution to this problem. That is why I am offering my legislation today.

It was just a little over two years ago that 36 lines were hidden away in a 1,641 page appropriations bill that overturned more than 30 years of national policy on the protection and management of wild free- roaming horses and burros, allowing these ``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West'' to literally be slaughtered through the use of a backdoor legislative maneuver enacted without public notice or input.

The public reaction to this change in law was swift and deafening. There was a good reason why it had been illegal for more than 30 years to sell or transfer wild free-roaming wild horses and burros for processing into commercial products. Americans were aghast to learn that these animals could be slaughtered for their meat to be served on dinner tables in such foreign countries as France, Belgium, and Japan.

Horses are an integral part of the tapestry of this country--a symbol, a promise of possibility, a companion, and a treasured childhood memory. Americans have always championed their survival, and expect that that these creatures will be protected. To allow them to be sacrificed and slaughtered represents great disrespect to the will of the American people and is an affront to our nation's history.

Instead of addressing long-term and widespread management problems the Bureau of Land Management, which administers the wild horse and burro program, has been forced to scurry to try to stop wild horses and burros from being sent to slaughter. Unfortunately for several dozen of these animals their attempts came too late and slaughter occurred.

Slaughter is all the more senseless since humane alternatives exist and federal agencies have the authority to carry out such humane measures as adoption, sterilization, relocation, and placement with qualified individuals and organizations.

The time has long since passed to restore the prohibition on the sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. I urge my colleague to heed the will of the American public and respond to common decency by supporting my legislation. We owe no less to these living symbols of the American West.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The pending measure, as passed by the Senate, may be one of the last items on our schedule this Congress, but it is certainly not the least important. The bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in order to guide the management of our marine fisheries through 2013.

We would not be here today if Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye had not extended an olive branch. I am extremely appreciative of the hard work that they and their staffs put into this legislation. I also commend our colleague Tom Allen who worked tirelessly on behalf of the fishermen in his district to improve this legislation.

While the pending measure does not do everything I would have liked, it does not roll back the conservation principles in this important fisheries management law. The legislation actually strengthens the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

For the first time, regional fishery management councils will be required to establish catch limits that may not exceed the recommendations of the councils' scientific and statistical committees. We expect the scientific committees are to take into account a wide range of scientific opinions when making their recommendations.

Members of the scientific committees will be required to file financial disclosure forms with the Secretary. This requirement will enable the general public to use the Freedom of Information Act to ascertain whether the scientists are truly independent.

For the most depleted fisheries in our country, the legislation will require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare and implement a rebuilding plan that puts an end to overfishing immediately. This is a significant improvement in the law. Studies have shown that the clearest cause of the lack of progress in rebuilding is the failure of many plans to reduce overfishing on those critically depleted stocks. H.R. 5946 addresses this concern.

Notwithstanding efforts by this Congress to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act, H.R. 5946, as amended, requires full compliance with the law. The Secretary of Commerce is directed to update the procedures for complying with NEPA, but these new procedures will not supercede existing NEPA regulations and guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality.

Additionally, H.R. 5946 places a 10-year limit on permits, known as limited access privileges, which are issued to fishermen to harvest a quantity of fish. On this issue, I commend our colleague Tom Allen, who worked to ensure that the limited access privilege program conserves fisheries, is accountable, and protects small fishermen from those who would like to consolidate fisheries. The privileges are to be held by fishermen who are actively engaged and substantially participate in the fishery. The regional fishery associations are to maintain free and open markets for fishermen to sell their catch, and are not to force fishermen into unwilling or involuntary arrangements.

H.R. 5946 also encourages the conservation of coral reefs. The bill directs the Secretary to map the locations of deep sea corals for the councils, monitor activity occurring where deep sea corals exist, and develop technologies to assist fishermen in reducing the interactions that fishing gear has with corals.

Finally, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to undertake activities to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in international waters. This will assist domestic fishermen who bear the costs when fish harvested illegally result in degraded fish stocks and depressed prices worldwide.

In summary, H.R. 5946 will promote the conservation of our fisheries. The bill does not include everything on my wish list, but it improves upon existing law.

By reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the 109th Congress, we will have more time in the 110th Congress to devote to other ocean issues, including considering the recommendations of the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative.

It is a rare day that I agree with our President, but several months ago he said, ``Overfishing is harmful. It's harmful to our country and it's harmful to the world.'' I agree wholeheartedly and understand that this legislation takes corrective action to curtail overfishing, especially in our most depleted fisheries.

I support the bill, encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to show that I am voting for the pending legislation because it includes a historic accord to reauthorize the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program and to address, in a comprehensive fashion, the pressing need to insure the long-term financial stability of the funds which finance health care for members of the United Mine Workers of America.

My views on the OCS Leasing provisions in the pending legislation are well known. I oppose them.

Yet in this case, the health and safety of coalfield residents, takes precedence as it always has, and always will, when it comes to how I discharge my duties.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is a technical measure, and we have no problems with it on our side. I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the pending measure, as passed by the Senate, may be one of the last items on our schedule this Congress, but it is certainly not the least important. The bill would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in order to guide the management of our marine fisheries through 2013. We would not be here today if Senator Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye had not extended an olive branch. I am extremely appreciative of the hard work that they and their staff put into this legislation. I also commend our colleague on this side of the aisle, Tom Allen from Maine, who worked tirelessly on behalf of the fishermen in his district to improve this legislation. And while the pending measure does not do everything I would have liked, it does not roll back the conservation principles in this important fisheries management law. The legislation actually strengthens the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

I support the bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was going to wait until the very end to respond, but I want to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the House Resources Committee, that it has truly been an honor to work with him during his tenure as chairman of our committee. The gentleman has fought hard for those principles that he has believed in. He has accomplished a great deal during his tenure here. I commend him for his tenacity, and he truly has been a fighter for that which he believes. As he has said, we have not agreed on every issue, but we have had our respectful disagreements and we have worked in good faith as well. I believe we have during his tenure as chairman.

I do welcome the incoming ranking member, Mr. Young. I have served on both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Resources Committee for my entire tenure in this body. Thirty years we have worked together, and now I am glad to have him as the ranking member on my committee and may he stay that way for a long, long time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been a true leader on this issue and fought very hard for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a valued member of our committee.

If the gentleman would yield.

The gentleman from Oregon is entirely correct. It is my understanding that the bill would permit the Pacific Council process to continue. We recognize that the Pacific Council has made substantial progress and do not intend to disrupt their efforts to develop and implement an appropriate groundfish management program, consistent with this act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's question. I would say that he is entirely correct. In order to help ensure that affected stakeholders have the maximum degree of confidence in the management measures developed by the councils and that those measures are as effective as possible, it is vital that the Science and Statistical Committees operate in an open manner that is receptive to a full spectrum of scientific opinion. Accordingly, it is our expectation that under this legislation, the Science and Statistical Committees would gather information and prepare recommendations in a way that takes into account the research and expertise of a wide range of scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, this concludes debate on our side of the aisle. Again, commending our chairman, Mr. Pombo, wishing him the best on whatever avenue he pursues in the future. I know that he will be spending a great deal of time on the ranch with his lovely wife, Annette. I wish him Godspeed there.

I thank Mr. Gilchrest for his work on this legislation, those that have spoken on it for the help they have been, especially, as I started out my remarks, I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye who truly extended the olive branch that broke the logjam on this legislation.

As Mr. Allen has already done, I also want to recognize our committee Democratic staff who helped make this bill possible. Chief among them is Lori Sonken, as well as Jeff Petrich and Charlotte Stevenson.

I thank Mr. Pombo's staff as well. His staff has put in numerous hours on this over a long, long period of time. Without their work we would not be here today celebrating the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of S. 101 is to convey a small parcel of Federal land to the town of Frannie, Wyoming.

While we do not object to passage of S. 101, we do want to ensure that we address concerns raised at the December 7, 2005, hearing of the Subcommittee on Water and Power regarding the intent of Congress with respect to the ownership of this parcel and the purpose for which it will be used.

Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record at this point two letters received from the town of Frannie by Water and Power Subcommittee Ranking Member Grace Napolitano.

Town of Frannie,

Frannie, WY, December 15, 2005.

Hon. Grace Napolitano,

Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Napolitano: It has come to our

attention that there were concerns expressed over the Town of

Frannie gaining ownership of federal lands in Frannie Wyoming

and then immediately disposing of them. As a smaller

governmental entity, we fully understand the concerns on this

issue.

One of the unique features in the Town of Frannie is on the

NE\1/4\ of Block 26. The Town

of Frannie holds a Bureau of Reclamation 99-year Special Use

Permit for our Centennial (Lasting Legacy) Park. In 1990, as

a project to commemorate a ``Lasting Legacy'' of Wyoming's

centennial year, the Frannie Elementary students, with

community support and help, built this park. The park is a

topographical representation of Wyoming with rocks depicting

mountain ranges and the pathways are the two main

thoroughfares across the state. This children's park holds a

special place in the hearts of many of our community members.

Past and present Town Council members have been discussing

the use for the NW\1/4\ of Block 26. The need for a large

group picnic shelter, a community hall, and a maintenance

shop are a few ideas that the councils were considering.

Before we can commit to developing these lots for public use,

we will first need to gain ownership.

It is our desire to have this land remain open for public

use since it is adjacent to our town hall, basketball court,

and library. We feel that we would be better managers and

protectors of these lots if they were under our care. On July

19, 2000, the Wyoming State Director of the Bureau of Land

Management, stated in a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation,

``Since BLM feels the parcel is not suitable for return to

the public domain and management under the public land and

mining laws, and the land is no longer needed for BR

purposes, it is recommended a means of disposal of this

parcel be sought whereby the Town of Frannie can protect its

investment.''

We understand the concern with the Town of Frannie turning

around and selling the North\1/2\ of Block 26. Although we

cannot guarantee what future council members' goals and

values will be, you can rest assured that the present council

and many of our community members desire that this entire

block remain intact for the public's use.

We sincerely hope that you will give us your support of S.

101.

Sincerely,

Jerry Dart,

Mayor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that this legislation, which would designate Federal wilderness areas on national forest system lands within the States of New Hampshire and Vermont, is before us in part due to the efforts of our colleague, Bernie Sanders, and for that, I commend the gentleman from Vermont for his dedication, persistence and willingness to work with us on this legislation. He will soon become a member of the other body, but we shall still maintain our friendship. I salute him for his tenacity in ensuring that his State's interests are included in this measure.

I would also observe that the wilderness designations made by the pending measure are clean, and by that, I refer to the fact that they are not coupled with other matters which have nothing to do with wilderness.

Wilderness standing on its own here, the benefits of wilderness designation to the local economy, to hunters and fishermen, and to our heritage and future generations of Americans, is on display for all to see.

It is not being coupled or being debased with other matters such as the disposal of public lands as the price of obtaining some wilderness designation as we have seen with a number of other bills considered by this body in recent months.

So I am pleased to support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and again congratulate him on his ascension into the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Anthony J. ``Tony'' Zagami, a true public servant who will retire from the U.S. Government Printing Office at the end of this year.

I have known Tony since the mid-1960s, when I was an intern in the office of Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, and Tony was a Senate page. Over the years, Tony has been a great friend to me, to my family and to the people of West Virginia, and he will certainly be missed here in the legislative branch.

However, let no one argue that Tony has not earned his retirement. After spending 25 years working for the U.S. Congress, Tony left Capitol Hill to become the General Counsel of the GPO. When he departs at the end of the year, he will have set a record as the GPO's longest- serving General Counsel.

Throughout his career, both here on the Hill and at the GPO, Tony was known for his dedication and commitment to public service. He has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions for outstanding performance and achievement.

I thank Tony for his outstanding service and for his friendship over years. The qualities he embodies are getting harder and harder to find nowadays.

May God bless this admirable man and his family as he begins his next chapter.

Mr. Speaker, today the House plans to take up the reauthorization of the Appalachian Regional Commission. Every one of the southern West Virginia counties I represent is encompassed by the Appalachian Regional Commission and ARC support is critical to our communities' livelihood and well-being.

It is ARC's ability to serve its mission by adapting it actions to fit the times that makes ARC such an invaluable resource to Appalachia and the Nation. From the Appalachian Development Highway System to e- commerce and broadband initiatives, ARC continues to serve its mission by advocating and partnering with the people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development and improved quality of life.

For these reasons, among others, I will support the legislation before us today to reauthorize ARC. However, I do so with reservations.

For most of the past 41 years of ARC existence, its program has been free of congressional earmarks. Congress has appropriated funds to ARC and ARC, through a formula based largely on need, has apportioned Federal money to the States.

In fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, we have seen significant earmarking of the ARC account. Indeed, my home State of West Virginia has received a number of these earmarks.

Why is this? In most instances Members have not requested these funds come from ARC formula funds. However, committee leadership has been forced into this practice of feeding on our own. Why? Because the priorities of Congress have shifted from Middle America to the Middle East.

Our appropriators are faced with this dilemma because the $8 billion per month spent in Iraq precludes us from investing in needed infrastructure here at home. I've said many times that dollars for Baghdad would be better spend in Beckley--Beckley, WV.

While one of the funded projects has benefited many southern West Virginians directly by providing much needed water and wastewater assistance, I believe it is important we refrain from earmarking the very scarce resources allocated to ARC and, if earmarking the ARC account continues, Congress should require that congressional earmarks are derived from that State's formula allocation of ARC funds.

I believe adopting such a provision will benefit all ARC member States and the long-term viability of ARC itself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of ``Jack Hardin Day'' which was celebrated in many towns in my District recently. No one is more deserving of this honor than the man for which the day was named-- a man who has served southern West Virginia, both as a journalist and as a community activist, for more than 50 years.

Jack Hardin is an icon, an institution, to the people of Huntington, WV., and beyond. It was fitting then, that on Jack Hardin Day, also Jack's 80th birthday, the members of the community came together for a good-natured roasting of their favorite son. It is also fitting that the proceeds of this roast went to an important charity--the Hospitality House of Huntington. Jack wouldn't have had it any other way.

While I was unable to attend the roast of my friend Jack Hardin, I would have loved to have been there to hear the tales, the teasing and what I am sure was a good amount of praise for a man who has become a role model to so many.

Jack Hardin is a moral man, a family man, and southern West Virginia is lucky to have him. I thank Jack for his contributions to our area over the years and commend the community of Huntington and Jack's family for coming together to put together a celebration worthy of such a man.

May this be the first of many ``Jack Hardin Days.''

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, a very valued member of our Resources Committee, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of some on my side of the aisle that this amendment should have been brought to the floor under a rule so that amendments could be offered by interested Members.

Indeed, during the Resources Committee's deliberations on this measure, several members issued concerns, and both the chairman and myself assured them that they would be considered as the process moved forward. Yet the Republican leadership chose to schedule this bill as a suspension, and as such amendments are not made in order.

With that said, the bill before the body today is the product of a negotiation which took place between Chairman Pombo and myself as the ranking member on the Resources Committee.

The original introduced version bill went too far in my opinion in interfering with tribal sovereignty. As a result of our negotiations, the version reported by the committee, which is pending before us, has a great deal more respect for tribal sovereignty while still achieving the goal of reining in off-reservation casino shopping.

Let me be very clear on this point. The letter the National Congress of American Indians has sent in opposition to this bill must be in reference to the original introduced version, not what is before us today. That letter alleges that a tribe would have to seek approval of a local government before gaming could commence. It alleges the bill would subordinate tribes to local governments. This is just plain false.

What the bill does require is that a tribe seeks to establish an agreement with a local community concerning the costs of mitigating the impact from public services that could arise from a new casino. That is nothing less and nothing more than good business practice. It is what most tribes do today.

On the broader issue, there should be no doubt that this legislation is necessary. According to United South and Eastern Tribes, which represents 24 federally recognized tribes in the east, this bill is critical on tracking down reservation-shopping abuses which are often funded by shadowy developers.

The president of the organization, Keller George, in a letter to Congress states: ``This kind of reservation shopping runs counter to the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and well-established Indian policies.'' He urges the favorable approval of the pending legislation.

So while I remain concerned about the process, I am in support of the bill. I urge Members to vote in favor of it

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are not here today to determine whether the events of September 11, 2001 should be memorialized. That process began immediately after that tragic day in truly American fashion, as spontaneous free expressions of grief and unity.

Ribbons were pinned on chests. Old Glory was hung from every post. Shared moments of silence, neighbors gathering on front stoops by candlelight, families and friends and total strangers joining hands, churches and football fields ringing of spacious skies and amber waves of grain.

Over the last 5 years, States and cities, organizations and individuals throughout our great Nation have chosen to commemorate that day, the sorrow and the heroism, in different tangible ways, with art and statues and structures that will long stand as reminders of our shared experience.

Now, national efforts are underway, with congressional support, in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. The specific purpose of House Resolution 175 is to place the Congress on record supporting a memorial in New York City that will also be a memorial conceived, designed, and interpreted for our Nation as a whole.

It is appropriate that we do this. The brutal attack upon our Nation was intended to be national in scope by its perpetrators. Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, were scarred by an attack aimed at the whole of America. And so our national memorials will allow the American people to remember and honor and heal in the manner in which we were attacked, as one.

Further, this memorial should be national in scope because we have responded to these attacks, and we have overcome them, as one Nation. Mighty challenges persist, but we are meeting them, and today our liberty has remained intact. Our Nation is scarred, but our Nation prevails.

This was not always assured. As the Civil War raged on, Abraham Lincoln publicly contemplated the possibility that a nation conceived such as ours might not long endure. We have often heard our country described as an experiment, the outcome of which is uncertain.

But through world wars and a Great Depression, through painful social upheaval and a Cold War, and now through the attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation has indeed survived. A free people, free to believe as we wish, free to speak our minds, free to raise our children as we see fit, will, make no mistake about it, endure. A resilient people cherishing liberty and equality and the rule of law will endure.

Tyrannies can be powerful, but they are brittle. They derive power from the denial of freedom. It is a power founded in the suppression of human potential, and it cannot be sustained. America, 5 years after this brutal attack, is testament that a Nation conceived in liberty and equality will endure. It is a triumph of millions of Americans but it is also the triumph of an idea larger than any one person, larger than any one nation.

A memorial in New York should speak to this larger triumph, and so we urge our colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague that represents the World Trade Center area, Mr. Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the rule governing the debate on H.R. 503 makes in order seven amendments, all but one of which were filed late, beyond the deadline for amendment submission with the Rules Committee.

What does this suggest? Normally, as we know, the Rules Committee is not enthused with late-filed amendments. As I recall, the majority on the Rules Committee has even used this as an excuse to not make certain amendments in order.

So I think those of us on both sides of the aisle are being sent a signal here. And that message is that there is a concerted effort among some in power in this body to torpedo the pending legislation, H.R. 503, by gaining the adoption of nefarious and ill-conceived amendments that would simply gut the legislation. This is the hand that we are being dealt. And it is apparently the one that we must play.

With that said, I rise in support of the rule. I urge my colleagues, especially on my side of the aisle, to vote for it, so at the very least, we can have an open debate on the issue of horse slaughter in the United States, so that we can strive to keep hope alive.

Americans do not eat horse flesh. The concept is repugnant to most Americans. Yet the merchants of slaughter will have us believe that it is fine and dandy to slaughter our horses for the sole purpose, the sole purpose, of sending their flesh overseas to support some warped demand among foreign diners for horse meat on their menus.

Hear me and hear me now: America, the land of the brave and true, we are sending over 90,000 horses a year to slaughter. Stunned in the head if lucky, throats slit. Explain this to your children. Try to defend this to your constituents.

I hope my colleague will vote for the rule, demonstrate that we will stand up to the likes of those who slaughter our horses for profit and slaughter our horses for power.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for yielding me the time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The House has gone on the record three times now in strong opposition to horse slaughter.

I hope my colleagues will maintain that record, maintain their consistency and give overwhelming support of this bill. It is a sad state of affairs when we have to fight to prevent the slaughter of more than 90,000 American horses a year.

Horses are an integral part of the tapestry of this country, an American icon. The horse is a symbol, a promise of possibility. Most of all, the horse is a companion, as we just heard in the letter of Mr. Jones's constituent in North Carolina. The horse is tied to the spirit of the American frontier, the homesteaders in covered horse-drawn wagons, a cowboy and the wild mustangs. All symbols of America.

The horse is a promise of possibility. How often Americans have sat in anticipation, watching the pageantry of thoroughbreds racing for the roses in the annual Kentucky Derby, while fully hoping for the triumph of some deserving underdog, perchance to see a rare Triple Crown winner, a truly American story.

But most importantly, the horse is a companion for many Americans in a treasured childhood memory. Little boys and girls for generations have ridden a carousel pony dreaming that some day they will have a real horse to ride, a companion.

Horses are a part of our identity and our heritage, and in America they are not for human consumption. But, unfortunately, that is the fate of many of these animals.

Today, three foreign-owned slaughter houses operate in the U.S., serving an overseas market in horse meat. Thousands more horses are shipped annually out of the U.S., destined for other foreign slaughter houses. Horse slaughter is an export-driven market. Americans do not want it, and we should not be facilitating it.

The horse slaughter industry and its allies are going to extreme lengths to prevent this ghastly, but lucrative, practice.

I hope that the House will once again pass this much-needed legislation and not see the Department of Agriculture circumvent the intent of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in my capacity as the Ranking Member of the Resources Committee which has legislative jurisdiction over Indian Affairs.

This amendment is an insult to Indian Country. It suggests that Native Americans consume horse flesh. And in doing so, it is derisive of their culture and their society.

The fact of the matter is that Indians do not eat horse flesh, and the three horse slaughter operations in this country do not sell horse flesh to Indians.

The meat of slaughtered horses is all exported by these slaughterhouses to foreign markets.

Indeed, I have before me resolution after resolution from Indian Country opposing the slaughter of horses, including from the National Congress of American Indians.

But to be clear, there is another purpose behind this amendment, because it seeks to also allow horses to be slaughtered for the consumption of people from cultures that eat equine meat. As a general matter.

The fact of the matter is that all of the meat from American slaughtered horses is consumed in European or Asian countries by people who traditionally eat horse flesh.

Adoption of this amendment would gut the pending legislation. It would render it null and void.

My colleagues, do not be fooled, do not be lulled into complacency by the attempt of this amendment to garner sympathy for Native Americans, when no such sympathy is required.

A vote for this amendment is the same as a vote against final passage of H.R. 503.

I urge the defeat of the pending amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career contributions of Mr. Tim Friedman, Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom and a public servant of the highest degree. For 30 years, Mr. Friedman has served our country in some capacity within the walls of Congress and he has served these years with dignity and decorum.

As Mr. Friedman prepares to retire, I congratulate him and wish him the best. He has certainly earned the opportunity to kick up his heels, enjoy some time with his wife, and play a few rounds of golf. But as a Member of Congress, I must say that it is sad to see him go. For 20 years, he has been a fixture in the Cloakroom--an institution as significant as the Cloakroom itself.

Mr. Friedman will be missed, but his work ethic will continue on, through his co-workers who admire him, through the many pages who have looked to him for guidance over the years and through the Democratic Members of Congress themselves.

I thank Mr. Friedman for his service and his commitment to the Democratic Cloakroom.

The qualities he embodies--loyalty, trustworthiness, reliability--are getting harder and harder to find nowadays. May God bless this admirable man and his family as he begins this next chapter.